arbiter
JournalsAccount

Good Intentions, Flawed Execution, Perfect Storm? Early Observations of CPA Evolution

Steve Buchheit et al.

Accounting Horizons2026https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2025-067article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

SYNOPSIS CPA Evolution has redefined CPA licensure by adopting a “Core + Discipline” model, requiring CPA aspirants to pass three core exams and one discipline-specific exam. Discipline exam selection ostensibly aligns with career focus, but early testing results reveal wildly uneven pass rates that are associated with exam preparation time differences among disciplines. CPA candidates are responding by selecting discipline exams that do not align with their chosen career path (e.g., future auditors taking the tax discipline exam). Pairing these trends with ongoing reductions in formal education (i.e., alternatives to the 150-hour rule) suggests that the competency and preparedness of future CPAs should be considered. Two education-related changes designed to increase accounting enrollment may change the future of what it means to be a CPA. We argue that current trends merit reflection by practitioners, regulators, and educators.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2025-067

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{steve2026,
  title        = {{Good Intentions, Flawed Execution, Perfect Storm? Early Observations of CPA Evolution}},
  author       = {Steve Buchheit et al.},
  journal      = {Accounting Horizons},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2308/horizons-2025-067},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Good Intentions, Flawed Execution, Perfect Storm? Early Observations of CPA Evolution

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.